Re: [Gimp-web] Check static.gimp.org
Pat David <[email protected]> Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:40:06 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.video.gimp.web |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAPC+-kmsUZv-w0YrbJdE7vOhgQPL4+Bwhb2qy09K54MDh+VBQQ@mail.gmail.com> |
Well, poop. :) Will you be around on Thursday at some time to meet on IRC with schumaml and anyone else that wants to come? By the way - anyone that would like to join us, please do on irc.freenode.net #gimp-web I am tentatively thinking 1900UTC to meet - does that work ok for everyone? On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:07 AM Simon Budig <[email protected]> wrote: > > Two minor issues: > > Please consider making the body text more bold and more black. > > For me the text is on the brink on the unreadable due to the lack of > contrast. Given that we all age at a rate of 1s/s I'd appreciate that > :) > > See http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/files/weight-comparison.png for a > comparison of the original and changing the weight to 400 (gimp.css:153) > and color to #333 (home.css:2). > Of course I'll have a look! I'm hoping there might be a nice compromise. I'm rather fond of the lighter weight, but at the same time don't want to content to be hard to read. I did at least try to follow the W3C web content accessibility guidelines for contrast ratio (that light body text is actually 4.48:1 ratio, the guidelines for text that size is actually to be at least 3! Also - there's a W3C accessibility guideline for contrast ratio! :) ). http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#qr-visual-audio-contrast-contrast I'll render out some options later and see if we can't make it a bit more legible. > > It might be worth looking at more pages than I did. For example the news > item date is #aaa on white in a very small light font. If we don't want > our visitors to read the text it would be better to remove the text > instead :) > Absolutely, I'll check against the entire site when we find one we like. The news items have a (slightly) different color at the moment as well, I believe. I was trying to use color to differentiate secondary information from that area, but may have gone too far. :) pat